why the fuck would I hire someone who would do lagom, vs a person who would go above and beyond and do that extra crunch of work?

^

@méep doesn't know shit about economics and has never worked a day in its life

@Durtle02 yeah exactly, the "MUH genders dont have natural tendencies"

kek ~~They do tho :p~~

So one thing I noticed, Female faculty are less likely to recommend hiring more females.

And they don't want to mentor female hires.

I wonder why?

<:think_woke:378717098681171988>

Well, you have to wonder, because it's not been investigated.

how fucking deceving

because "MUH power politics" ^4

it's only a difference of $4000 yet it looks huge in the graph

Look at that huge differ... oh, where's the zero?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

basic graph manipulation

it's like that stunt nvida pulled

If you're going to remove 25000 just finish off the extra 4000 why dont you?

I don't know of a single journal/conference where this graph would be allowed.

Oh, right... gender studies...

hahahahah

another graph for you guys

would you look at that, the female faculty want to hire more male students

muh internal muhsoggyknees amirite?

OH AND LOOK AT THAT

The paper could just as easily be "female faculty discriminate more than male faculty".

The **MALE** faculty want to hire more females

IMAGINE MY SHOCK

wot

Such good research @méep

you fucking plonker

all this shows is that females are less likely to be good at jobs

IF YOU'RE OWN GROUP IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST YOU, that tells you something

it's not that they're not good at office work, it's that they're cancerous to a productive environment

^

period

all men = all good

all women = all shit

>We recruited faculty participants from Biology, Chemistry, and
>Physics departments at three public and three private large, geographically
>diverse research-intensive universities in the United States

mixed = unproductive

So this is what I think makes the study weak.